Happily, this is a hypothetical discussion. Should we find ourselves with sovereign powers the matter would be quite serious. As we find ourselves, it is just a friendly conversation about a place that does not exist, with courts that do not exist and a police force that does not exist.

Persons who are guilty of crimes against the gay people should not escape justice, regardless of where they dwell.

It will be the gay people who decide what are and what are not crimes worthy of punishment. I cannot support any happy excuses of political or religious conscience; that these monsters actually believe in what they do is hardly a mitigating circumstance. Instead, I find it to be evidence of motive to be used in the prosecution.

I fully agree. The gay people shall execute justice for crimes against gay people, without any regard on where the criminals dwell. "If the mount does not come to Muhammed, Muhammed goes to the mount" is an effective solution for those who try to escape their due treatment. The rules for persecution crimes against the gay people shall be installed by the gay people itself, with legislative of the future gay state being one of the possible authorities for implementation of necessary legislation. In the absense of the gay state some other groups/organizations can be tempted to help justice on their own - who could condemn them for this? However, a fair process with considering actual weight of the crimes of any particular defendent is only possible on a regular Court of Justice, therefore should be the favored solution if possible.

The only ones over whom we would have real competence in matters of trials and as a State would be gays,specifically those who have committed treason against our interests.The others,all non-gays,only acted according to their own interests,in which I see no crime.Some it is true,acted viciously.But that is no reason to put them on trial.At most,it would justify consequent administrative,executive and extra-judiciary action,no court interfering in the process.[..] the procedure to follow with high ranking nazis was purely administrative: capture,identification and vertical emigration,the whole matter being settled in five or six hours.

I would oppose the "vertical emigration" (we undersand us well, I think) as contradicting my basic beliefs on humanity. Everybody shall be treated accordingly to the severity of his/her crime, and there shall be no excuse because of an assumed "self-interest". On contrary, the pursuing of base interests makes a crime even worse (e.g., a simple homicide turns into a murder). In the most modern jurisdictions, a man cannot be imprisoned for an action commited before these particular action was declared a crime. Therefore, the persecution shall concentrate on crimes which are universally regarded as crimes by humans everywhere - murder, grievous bodily harm etc, and instigation to such crimes. Recent German history might one more time serve with examples - upon the re-unification, high-ranking GDR officials and simple soldiers were tried for shootings on the FRG-GDR border, although they acted in accordance with the GDR laws. The devise was simple: "Murder does not come under the statute of limitations". It is understood that persons with hight influence (e.g. high-ranking politicians and religious leaders) load heavier guilt upon their shoulders than a simple hatefull idiot in the local baseball team. Those who commited severe crimes shall be seized and persecuted, the small fishes can be set free upon short trial and a guilt recognition.

All criminals act in their own interests [..]. This does not exempt them from punishment for their crimes. I would call upon a gay government to bring all of the torturers and murderers to justice, and I would work to topple a false gay government that would not do so. Surely some of the enemies of the gay people will find themselves beyond the reach and resources of the gay government, but by rights they should at least die hunted men.

Achieving justice for the victims of gay bashing and governmental terror is one of the very reasons for the gay state to exist - the victims shall be revenged. Any gay government which shall prove to be overly lenient towards the mentioned criminals makes itself guilty of the very crime of persecution circumvention, and possibly of high treason.

That can perfectly be effected without trial. [..] All the more efficiently without any delay or interference by a court,where the defendant could turn the tables on us,pursue his homophobic propaganda show,and rally certain sectors of the international opinion to his defense.

The trial on a proper court is always the better solution - and we can use such a trial for transmitting the message as well. Whenever it proves not possible to seize the criminal alive, he/she shall be tried in absense and the justice be helped on another way. If a person publicly declares an open war against homosexuals, he makes himself a subject to the rules of war, with all the consequences. If the snake cannot be captured for a dental treatment, it shall loose its head completely.

All criminals act in their own interests, except perhaps true psychopaths (and I believe at least some psychologists would tell us that even madmen act in their own interests after a fashion). This does not exempt them from punishment for their crimes. I would call upon a gay government to bring all of the torturers and murderers to justice, and I would work to topple a false gay government that would not do so. Surely some of the enemies of the gay people will find themselves beyond the reach and resources of the gay government, but by rights they should at least die hunted men.

That can perfectly be effected without trial.A gay State would expectedly have the proper agencies to deal with problematic non-gays.Its immigration services would handle those who abuse our hospitality by expelling them.A certain branch of its intelligence services,more familiarwith action,could remove more completely and definitely those who have persecuted gays.All the more efficiently without any delay or interference by a court,where the defendant could turn the tables on us,pursue his homophobic propaganda show,and rally certain sectors of the international opinion to his defense.

Clearly then some gay nationalists can be further described as revanchist and some cannot.

When a snake bites your child, you do not go looking for the snake with the blood on it's jaws; any snake will do. Now, this is an extreme position, one that I will not defend in most circumstances. But here we are talking about snakes with blood on their jaws. Surely you cut off such a snake's head, lest it bite again. I speak metaphorically, of course. Beheading is not, of necessity, called for--but neither is it automatically out of the question.

All criminals act in their own interests, except perhaps true psychopaths (and I believe at least some psychologists would tell us that even madmen act in their own interests after a fashion). This does not exempt them from punishment for their crimes. I would call upon a gay government to bring all of the torturers and murderers to justice, and I would work to topple a false gay government that would not do so. Surely some of the enemies of the gay people will find themselves beyond the reach and resources of the gay government, but by rights they should at least die hunted men.

Happily, this is a hypothetical discussion. Should we find ourselves with sovereign powers the matter would be quite serious. As we find ourselves, it is just a friendly conversation about a place that does not exist, with courts that do not exist and a police force that does not exist.

Persons who are guilty of crimes against the gay people should not escape justice, regardless of where they dwell.

It will be the gay people who decide what are and what are not crimes worthy of punishment. I cannot support any happy excuses of political or religious conscience; that these monsters actually believe in what they do is hardly a mitigating circumstance. Instead, I find it to be evidence of motive to be used in the prosecution.

The only ones over whom we would have real competence in matters of trials and as a State would be gays,specifically those who have committed treason against our interests.The others,all non-gays,only acted according to their own interests,in which I see no crime.Some it is true,acted viciously.But that is no reason to put them on trial.At most,it would justify consequent administrative,executive and extra-judiciary action,no court interfering in the process.A watered-down version of the Morgenthau plan for defeated nazi Germany.According to that plan,which was finaly not implemented,the procedure to follow with high ranking nazis was purely administrative: capture,identification and vertical emigration,the whole matter being settled in five or six hours.

Happily, this is a hypothetical discussion. Should we find ourselves with sovereign powers the matter would be quite serious. As we find ourselves, it is just a friendly conversation about a place that does not exist, with courts that do not exist and a police force that does not exist.

Persons who are guilty of crimes against the gay people should not escape justice, regardless of where they dwell.

It will be the gay people who decide what are and what are not crimes worthy of punishment. I cannot support any happy excuses of political or religious conscience; that these monsters actually believe in what they do is hardly a mitigating circumstance. Instead, I find it to be evidence of motive to be used in the prosecution.

If being a member of an anti-gay religious denomination is their only crime, expulsion would be reasonable. I would question the likelihood of this level of 'innocence' however. Persons who are guilty of crimes against the gay people should not escape justice, regardless of where they dwell.

They will have most probably fled before our taking over,and thus find themselves beyond our reach.But should they fall into our hands,my tendency would be not to put them on trial.In fact not to put any non-gay on trial.Because what certain heterosexuals did to us was political,and not really juridical,the sanction and solution ought to be political,in fact geopolitical and simple: expulsion.Preceded,in the case of persons who comitted crimesagainst gays,with a warning of the following sort: if they remain in our country,beyond a certain date we will consider ourselves as no longer responsble for their security.

we must put on the first flight out all non-gay members of anti-gay religious denominations.

If being a member of an anti-gay religious denomination is their only crime, expulsion would be reasonable. I would question the likelihood of this level of 'innocence' however. Persons who are guilty of crimes against the gay people should not escape justice, regardless of where they dwell.

Certain religious fundamentalists should be tried under gay jurisdiction - similarly as some Nazis were judged by Israelis. The elementary basics of justice shall be kept, though - any particular simple catholic priest cannot be made responsible for the crimes of his predecessors or supervisors.

The moment we have established a gay independent State,we must put on the first flight out all non-gay members of anti-gay religious denominations.Our country is to be emptied of such denominations,and their assets expropriated.Gays who have been members of the clergyof such denominations ought to be tried for treason,account being taken of and credit being given to those who acted as informants for our sideon the activities of churches.In Europe and nowadays,churches are cautious with politics because they were at times and in the past taught terrible lessons by some revolutionnary secular powers (like in France and in 1789).If we cannot be liked by anti-gay churches,we cannot afford not to be feared by them.

Certain religious fundamentalists should be tried under gay jurisdiction - similarly as some Nazis were judged by Israelis.

Most assuredly.

Ordinarily I avoid discussion of purely hypothetical situations--reality differs too much from theory to make such conversation worthwhile. In this instance, however, the principle at hand is quite plain. If we would have justice, we must make that justice for ourselves. We might quibble about how long the list of defendants shall be but, short or long, there will be defendants. There can be no question that a sovereign gay state will hold the savages of the world to account for their barbarism.

And if some religion should claim that they are being discriminated against in the process...then let it be so.

[..] If we are to be serious political actors,we should neither forget nor forgive what churches and religion did to us. [..]

Certain religious fundamentalists should be tried under gay jurisdiction - similarly as some Nazis were judged by Israelis. The elementary basics of justice shall be kept, though - any particular simple catholic priest cannot be made responsible for the crimes of his predecessors or supervisors.

If religion and churches venture into the realm of politics,they are to be treated accordingly and consequently.That is ruthlessly.They enjoy no sovereign immunity from what could befall anyone involved in politics,and colliding with real world interests.Including ours.If we are to be serious political actors,we should neither forget nor forgive what churches and religion did to us.

Religion has no business in politics.And gay interests and rights are politics.

Well, that's not exactly true - religions such as Christianity or Islam have lots to do with politics, and Vatican and others have always interferred with politics. The question to be answered is, of course, whether some group of citizens shall be granted the right to harass onother group of citizens under the premise of "freedom of belief" and "free speech". Most civilized societies have reached a consensus in this question: there is no right to abuse others, bottom line. Anyone is free to believe what he/she wants, but the just state will no way allow somebody to assault his fellow citizen and get away with this. Unfortunately, in too many countries - in Germany too - the religious organizations have been granted exceptional liberties on the subject of harrassment and discrimination at the workplace. That's why catholic priests can freely instigate to hate crimes against gays and lesbians without being imprisoned, and gay and lesbian employees are practically deprived of any rights at their workplaces in catholic hospitals (funded mostly by federal government).

The church (and religion in general) is not under attack - while it most certainly should be. All those black-and-white magicians shall be demasked, and their lies and cheating be fighted with the weapons of science and enlightment. The liberal society shall re-gain the leadership in the "religious question" and make an end to this evil by and by.

What exactly do conservative Christians want? According to the Los Angeles Times, they want the right to loudly and publicly condemn homosexuality, and criticize and harass GLBT people and organizations, even in public school settings. Anything less amounts to harassment and discrimination against them, the result of a world that is "anti-Christian" and intolerant of their version of Christianity.